How Does A Loyal Opposition Work? Maybe Brexiting U.K. Can Help ?

In the face of an imminent Clinton victory the GOP made it clear that non cooperation and preparing an impeachment process was to be its strategy.This was to be a continuation of the behavior that left Obama overly dependent on executive orders and subsequent hippocritical accusations of imperial presidency.Now there are calls for unity and cooperation as Trumps due.Looking at what cooperation is being asked for,we see undoing of Obamacare with no concept of a replacenent. Rewriting of Medicare with a voucher system and the return of ineligible prexisting conditions,privatization of social security etc.
The hoopla surrounding Carrier corporations’potential replacement of 1400 jobs becomes 1000 saved 400 lost with a deal promised ( unknown content)by still governor Pence.Looking at the billionaires being put into positions of power makes us wonder if the populist candidate was “Smoke and Mirrors”If we’ve been conned by a pitchman,to whom is an opposition being loyal and to what end?
Importantly,how much insistence is to be made on a valid concept of divestiture of assets when a trust in the absence of tax returns and the presence of world wide holdings,cannot be blinded? Or is the trolling Trumpeter to be allowed to rewrite the constitution?

Post navigation

7 Comments

Solicited phone calls and meetings attended by his children with immediate or anticipated financial reward,paying rent from taxes (as president) to self (as landlord),promoting unilateral assertion in advance of policy decisions belonging to congress or local governance,short term deal making in advance of taking office, tweeting ex officio while eschewing press meetings,appointing extremists,conspiracy believers,unqualified persona ,too many generals( some not out of office the requisite 7 years )while preparing legislation to affect one man one time,on and on we can go.Support not of disinformation but constructed paid falsehood is perhaps the most serious.Demand empirical proof all you like DS while denying what’s under your nose you have used “SHAZAM” to create a beneficent being and to deny the ruthless transfer of power and money that is taking place.By all means supply your own facts.By the way the emergent( newsworthy) violence seems to be coming from the right.Go ahead and blame the media!

I have called Trump a “wild card” because in so many ways he does not conform to conventional societal “rules”. I was deeply concerned that he did not understand the deep differences between the left’s focus on an ethic of “social Justice” and the founders’ pragmatic grasp of human nature (most importantly incentives and disincentives) and original Constitutional intent. Confusing hyperbole runs rampant throughout this showman’s style. Behind his outlandish style of salesmanship is there a content of substance?
Too often we are tempted to judgments that ignore ALL the evidence (unjustified certitudes). This placates (and expands) favored feelings but at the cost of accuracy. Want to believe the worst about Trump? There was evidence to support such beliefs. Want to believe the best? There was evidence to support such beliefs. An objective judgment would require us to acknowledge all the above and therefore – high degrees of uncertainty (Welcome to the complexities of life). Trump was running as a Republican thus there was at least a possibility that even if the core left-right divide was not understood, he might be influenced by those with such understanding. A willingness to select Supreme Court Justices who understood the value of original intent was a powerful justification for support. Since the election we have been given more evidence as to the content of his character (There has been more coverage as to his history and cabinet selections). Despite the certitude with which Daedal2207 claims Trump to be in violation of (practically all) things good, his favorable rating according to polls has increased dramatically.
Some of the concerns listed by Daedal2207 are justified. But they do not rise to the level of measurably verifiable empirical evidence. He presented opinions which if given inspection demonstrate alternative possibilities (some are good for our Country). So, let’s look at a few:
Trump is “appointing extremists”. Those whom a Progressive would call “extremist” may well be an appropriate force for healthy correction.
Conspiracy believers”? Daedal does not explain who they are and what indeed is the nature of the “conspiracy”?
“Too many generals”? Maybe conditions call for more who have successfully embraced such forms of discipline.
“Unqualified”? Who specifically? By what criteria is this judgment made? This accusation is hollow if not accompanied with supporting arguments.
“Ruthless transfer of money and power”? This too needs to be explained in order to provide a level of meaning that transcends emotion-based opinion.
“The emergent (newsworthy) violence seems to be coming from the right.” “Seems” is the operative word and differs with one’s preferred exposure to various sources of “news”. For instance, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a leftist advocacy group, and so sensitive to the slightest suggestions of “hate” that its reports and statistics need to be viewed carefully and with much skepticism. Is the “disowning” of a parent (or child) because they voted for Trump a form of social “violence”? What about “unfriending” (which is a form of “book-burning”)? If so, Facebook can provide evidence of massive levels of measurable “violence” against Trumpers.
“Go ahead and blame the media!” It would be better to “blame” anyone or any group ascribing higher probabilities of truth to their judgments than ALL the evidence would justify.

@Don Spencer
Sir,
Rather than attack the other Donald (T), I wish to see you point out the good points about Trump in the following areas: 1) character, 2) political goals and what he will accomplish by them, 3) cabinet choices and what he hopes each will accomplish and how. Feel free to specify. If you find the task too daunting, simply decline the invitation in a post. You seem to have no problem providing retort at length, so this should be a breeze for you. I wish I had the time to commit to this blog as you do … unfortunately, I don’t. But I will take the time to read your reply if you commit to doing so. Convince me that the best person for the jobs has been selected, starting with Trump … I’m giving you the chance.

“The allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.” Thomas Sowell, in his book “Economics” clarifies for us that this is a summation of what every economic system (on every level) MUST do. (Unavoidable, the challenge becomes that of doing this necessary thing most efficiently). Beyond economics, this is apparently a fundamental challenge for every life lived. Time is one of the scarce resources. We cannot do everything, thus we must allocate its use most efficiently. Each life has its own unique contexts but we all must operate in a shared universe consisting of nature’s laws. Thus, no matter our differences we share a need for our ideas to exist in harmony with nature’s laws. The founders of our Constitution had a sharp understanding as to the nature of human nature and created a system of governance that “worked well” in the sense that it harnessed the power of incentives (and disincentives) to drive us to greater productivity thereby increasing resources as well as efficiency in the process of allocating resources according to demand (need). Relative to other systems we became a resource-rich nation. But for those who demand a greater equality in the distribution of resources the founders’ Constitution falls short – indeed in many ways it is deemed by them to be an obstruction. For correction, those of this persuasion (faith) strive to create a Supreme Court consisting of a majority of similarly believing Judges who are at ease reinterpreting its laws thereby advancing their vision of “social justice”. If the “Progressives” are successful in this endeavor efficiencies in the allocation of scarce resources are likely to diminish. If by taking this route (requiring forced-by-law redistributions) we experience diminished resources, unknown numbers (the most needy) will be denied resources required for survival. Among other reasons, because of this threat to the makeup of the Supreme Court it was important for the best future of humanity that Republicans win the election.
Another issue – is Donald Trump as President more a threat than a promise? Gregory wants me to list his good character traits. Hillary herself pointed out perhaps the most obvious. He has a great family. His children are respected and accomplished. They in turn demonstrate great respect for their dad. Donald Trump was taught to work with the workers on construction sites – he seems to have great empathy for the workers and they for him. He suffered the loss of a loved brother due to alcoholism and has demonstrated a discipline to avoid this scourge in his personal life. To the degree that his policies will actually cause good consequences (an original-intent Supreme Court among them) his remarkable talents as a showman-leader-communicator will be an asset. His focus on and keen eye for merit is likely to improve efficiency among government activities. One evidence as to anyone’s possession of merit is acquired wealth. Besides merit, when selected for high political office billionaires are probably among the least likely candidates for bribery. Contrary to his opponents’ slanders against him Trump has demonstrated that he hires talent no matter the package in which it is found. This is evidence that he is not racist, misogynist, or xenophobic.
As for the merits of each cabinet member relative to their task: Keep in mind the possibility that some government offices are truly bloated in meaning as well as in budget. The Federal Department of Education may indeed be less efficient in the effort to expand needed knowledge than would be the states if allowed more autonomy. More parental choice in education would probably cause improvement of all schools (through competition) and increased enthusiasm about learning. Health Care Savings Accounts are likely to insert competitive efficiencies into the demand and supply needs of medical care – this with less interference and siphoning of money by third and fourth party interests. Doctor patient relationships will be more direct and personal. A basic “peace through strength” stance as regards foreign affairs calls for those with expertise in military matters to have more influence in such preparations. Those who rose to the rank of General with high education achievements and real-world, life-death experiences seem appropriate to the cause. Adherence to our immigration laws would reduce the pool of low wage labor thereby creating a bidding force that will raise the wages of legal citizens (less supply – hopefully rising demand = rise in wages. (Yes, this will also mean a rise in the cost of goods produced by this more expensive labor force, but it will tend to favor US workers and that is a Trump priority.) A diverse range of resources are needed in order to shift our energy resources from fossil to renewable. Costs must be balanced against the probabilities that man’s contribution to global warming is of sufficient degree, and correctable, that fossil fuels can be weaned away without diminishing the availability of resources required to adapt. We need to understand the risks of too swift or too slow a reduction in the use of fossil energy. Contrary to claims by the left, climate science is not “settled science” (which is a contradiction). It needs open debate and must resist the silencing of argument. Those who condemn reasoned argument are likely dealing with a personal or group-shared need that is searching (sometimes hysterically) for a cause.

On a fundamental level two ideas are competing for the “American” future. One is that of the original founders’. Its focus is on Individual liberty, E Pluribus Unum, and In God we Trust (Justices believing in original intent are helpful to this end). The second is advocating for “social justice” which will require a sufficiently powerful government to force the redistributions and foment the attitudes it believes will bring about the (degree of) social equities it believes paramount (Justices believing in a “living constitution” are helpful to this end). It is rational that each will try to stop the advance of the other. Those minds actually desiring the best for America (and by extension the best for the world) will try to determine with best evidence which of these ideas is most workable relative to that goal.
Obamacare is seen by the Republicans as a level of forced redistribution that reduces needed incentives and impedes efficiency at all levels. By mixing market incentives into the health care equation resources are caused to expand, we will be served with higher quality and better coverage for overall medical needs. Health Savings Accounts is one method by which a market dynamic can be harnessed for the good of all. It remains to be seen if preexisting conditions will be part of the most efficient system. Sadly, reality tells us that there will be no panacea in this real world which will always consist of limited resources. Given this reality some conditions will never be served equally.
The number of billionaires or otherwise wealthy people assigned jobs in our government doesn’t clarify given that both competing parties contain many individuals who possess great wealth and political power. In this world generally, those who are most able also do well financially. Sometimes the qualities of mind and attitude that helped create personal wealth will provide insights that allow government jobs to be performed successfully thereby benefitting the people.
Apparently the President (unlike members of Congress) is not legally required to divest assets. Therefore allowing Trump to keep more than some think ethical is not going to require him or others to “rewrite the Constitution”. This situation, where for the first time we have a President with extensive worldwide holdings, creates political reasons for concern. Like many things in life, we may just have to live with it, see what happens, and maintain the ability to adjust accordingly.

Ah! Octogenarians have the pleasure of memories from the days of youth – when TV did not exist, and hours could be joyfully indulged with a friend sharing the art and stories of our comic book collections. Animals came to life with Disney Comic characters. Artist Jack Cole created a flexible super hero called Plastic Man who along with his friend Woozy fused humor to the battle against the evil forces. Shazam and other wild words were invented to help the imagination soar. It was a marvelous way for young minds to stretch and play. Fantasy was fabulous when others (adults) made the real world decisions that allowed us that leisure.
That was then. Our task (hopefully pleasure) is now that of acquiring adult (real world) understandings. I have presented a number of observations which (as in any scientific method for determining the probable truth of things) may need adjustment. Adults do this good (and hopefully pleasurable) thing by providing new empirical evidence and/or better logical structure. In today’s U.S.A. there are real conflicts. I have presented a number of points which if true shed light on how we may resolve many of these life destroying issues. The one-word response “Shazam” along with its comic book implications (linked to accusations of good-evil simplicity in an earlier comment) doesn’t provide the empirical and logical evidence an objective seeker of truth requires. It can be experienced as fun and cute -but it may also serve as too convenient a means to dismiss having to confront some (unpleasant-to-believe) realities. If this is the case, potential clarity is delayed or lost.